This
topic is slightly more relevant to LARP design than tabletop design,
but it’s a topic that a designer (and GM) needs to be cognizant of in
the design and storytelling process. It may seem like a simple
distinction, the player characters (PCs) vs. the non-player characters
(NPCs). After all, in a tabletop, this is blatantly obvious as the PCs
have actual breathing humans attached to them, and usually them alone,
while an NPC is part of a stable kept by the GM. Using this definition,
however, leads to thorny issues when you move to a LARP, where an NPC
is also attached to an actual breathing human.
So let’s try a different definition.
The
definition I’ve been working with for the last few months, and has
turned out to be fairly robust, is simply stated as thus: “The
difference between a PC and an NPC is the amount of agency the character
has.”
As
it happens, this definition has been robust because it ultimately ends
up to be a zero-sum game. A PC will have agency; an NPC will not. What
this means is that a PC is defined by their ability to meaningfully
interact and affect the story and world around them, while an NPC lacks
such an ability.
“But
wait! What about villains?! Darth Vader tries to blow up the rebels,
isn’t that by definition ‘affecting the story in a meaningful way’?” You
are probably all yelling at me. And well, my answer is “sort of”.
This
is why this topic gets a bit thorny when we move to tabletops and video
games. But there’s a key point about highly plot-relevant NPCs like
the main antagonists that keeps them firmly in the NPC camp. A
plot-relevant NPC will possibly cause an action that kicks off a plot,
buf from that point onward, the key turns of that plot are in the hands
of the PCs. The NPC will react to the PCs actions, even if it looks
like they’re manipulating the PCs in being the reactive side.
To go back to the Star Wars
example, if Luke decided “screw this, I’m outta here”, well, the
outcome of the trilogy would have been very different. If you’ve ever
run a tabletop, you know players are a force of nature onto themselves,
and they’ll only follow plot-hooks if they want to.
The NPCs will go off onto their determined path based on their initial
conditions unless an action by a PC causes them to deviate.
Bluntly stated, a PC must have agency in most situations. An NPC is a plot device.
To
be engaged in a game, the player must feel like they can affect the
game world in some way. They have to feel like their choices matter in
some way. An NPC, especially in a LARP, is a point of interaction, a
way of manipulating a plot. This part is equally true in tabletops and
games. And remembering it is a good way of ensuring that the most
memorable (and hopefully enjoyable) parts of a game are in the hands of
the PCs.
I find NPCs interesting because, in a LARP, sometimes they end up getting treated like pseudo-PCs with an extra metric fuckton of XP. I think it depends on how good of a GM you run into.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I prefer NPCs that are plot devices. If a ST isn't invested in an NPC living or dying, and only acts/reacts based on that pre-determined path, then I feel I'm actually affecting the story.
It's an interesting problem. Unless they are there to basically be the obstacle for the PCs, they really shouldn't outclass the PCs. Like when I throw in an NPC who has a metric fuckton of abilities and power, I actually generally expect them to be there to die. Or to be used by the PCs in a way (for example, in a Dresden Files game, stupidly powerful things could be summoned, but they were bound to a PC. Or wanted a PC for something, and had no actual real agency of their own).
DeleteWhen I play an NPC, I jokingly say that I'm playing with half-a-brain, but it's pretty true. (Except for that one time in a Harry Potter game where I was the NPC for Harry himself. Then I was playing with a quarter of a brain) The PCs should get the glory and the spotlight and all the cool stories, not the NPCs. No one wants to sit around and watch an immortal-by-GM-fiat NPC go do meaningful things. If they did, they'd go watch a play. Or at least, that's how I like to design things.
I tend not to mind if the NPCs outclass the PCs, but maybe that's because I also tend to LARP in games where the most powerful characters are *supposed* to be NPCs who can swat your character like a bug if you do something stupid. (Like, challenging the elder to single combat should get you swatted like a bug. But getting everyone together - and keeping them together, that's tougher - to take down the elder should be rewarded, because conspiracies should be *smart* things.)
ReplyDeleteI think half the fun is getting around the NPCs in a LARP, if they're played right. And in tabletop, your NPCs are usually rulers and such, and they don't have *time* to go find the hordes of whatnots that are plaguing the kingdom. That's why they do what they do. They delegate!
Though I will say, if I summon a stupid powerful demon in a game, I expect that it's there to trick me and take over. Maybe that's because I often LARP in World of Darkness, which is pretty much full of hideous things that are out to doom all of humanity?